USB4 = USB 3.x + Thunderbolt 3
- Paul Thurrott
- Mar 05, 2019
-
30
The USB Promoter Group said that it will incorporate Thunderbolt 3 capabilities into its USB4 specification. Which you just know will have stupid marketing name like “Super-Duper High-Speed USB.” Because USB Promoter Group.
“The primary goal of USB is to deliver the best user experience combining data, display and power delivery over a user-friendly and robust cable and connector solution,” said USB Promoter Group Chairman Brad Saunders, ignoring the fact that the primary problem with USB is that it is confusing and decidedly non-user-friendly. “The USB4 solution specifically tailors bus operation to further enhance this experience by optimizing the blend of data and display over a single connection and enabling the further doubling of performance.”
As you may know—I recounted the awful details recently in USB Couldn’t Be More Screwed Up (Premium)—USB is a confusing mess, and the USB Promoter Group just made it even more confusing with USB 3.2. Sorry, with SuperSpeed USB 20Gbp, as it will stupidly be called. The goal with that version is to double the effective data transfer speed of USB 3.x to 20 Gbps.
And the problem with that effort, of course, is that Thunderbolt 3—which, confusingly, is delivered via some but not all Type-C ports—is still twice as fast, at 40 Gbps. So the USB Promoter Group will eventually solve the problem by just incorporating Thunderbolt 3 and its 40 Gbps transfer speeds into the USB4 spec. Which again will absolutely be called something else whenever it arrives.
This begs a number of questions, the most obvious of which is, why even bother with USB 3.2? Why not just jump right to USB4? After all, Thunderbolt 3 has been available for years, and adding yet another type of USB with its own weird and unique capabilities will just further confuse an already confused market. (Also, why is it called USB4, and not USB 4 or USB 4.0?)
The USB Promoter Group has no answer to that. Because, again, USB Promoter Group.
Conversation 30 comments
-
provision l-3
<p>Okay, this is one of those things that I find far more grating than I really should but it totally tap dances on my last nerve when people misuse "begging the question".</p><p><br></p><p>Begging the question is a logical fallacy where an argument's premises assume that the conclusion is true. </p><p><br></p><p>Example: <span style="color: rgb(199, 142, 10);">The reason everyone wants the new "Slap Me Silly Elmo" doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season.</span></p><p><br></p><p>There is no begging the question here. There are questions raised though. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#409174">In reply to glenn8878:</a></em></blockquote><p>Nope. "begging the question" = "begs the question" or as Paul put "begs a number of questions". He meant "raises a number of questions". </p><p><br></p><p>www quickanddirtytips com/education/grammar/begs-the-question</p>
-
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#409203">In reply to glenn8878:</a></em></blockquote><p>I see where this is getting confused. "Begs the Question" or "Begging the Question" are not expressions or colloquialism like say "beat a dead horse". </p><p><br></p><p>It is the name of a logical fallacy much like Ad hominem, Appeal to Nature and Straw Man are all names of fallacies and they all have specific definitions. If a person were to take a Logic class it would be one of the many they were taught.</p>
-
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#409268">In reply to BeckoningEagle:</a></em></blockquote><p>I actually used that article specifically because of the paragraph you are talking about. The author argues that in this case we should stick to the formal definition. </p><p><br></p><p class="ql-indent-1"><em>"</em><em style="color: rgb(102, 117, 135);">There's no hole in the English language that needs to be filled, so there's no reason to use begs the question improperly."</em></p><p class="ql-indent-1"><br></p><p><br></p>